23 February, 2008

Politics and the Law

Raj Thackeray is priceless. Writing an open letter to Sudheendra Kulkarni in the Indian Express, he says:

[D]o political movements need to obey the law? Political history learnt by me tells me that breaking the law, getting arrested, braving lathis and getting jailed are symbols of a principled agitation.

In recent times, the rulers and opposition parties indulged in movements of political compromise, in which morchas are taken out, the share of benefits of the government and opposition parties are decided. Then the protesters and their companions go home and sleep peacefully! This is called todbazi (compromise). The word political movement is an equivalent word for breaking the law!

Most Indian politicians would surely agree with Thackeray that politics in India has become all about “the share of benefits of the government and opposition parties”—though few would state it so openly. Our politicians treat this country as government property, theirs to use as they please when they come to power, and theirs to bargain for when they are in opposition, using the threat of violence. For them, the law is a tool to oppress the common man, and not something that their activities need to be subject to. No wonder they ask, do political movements need to obey the law?

And really, what’s the difference between them and the British Empire we fought to overthrow. That was just timepass, or did we really want freedom?

Also read: Nitin Pai’s astute take on the subject, and my earlier essay, The Republic of Apathy.